Forums

Who is this clown? Topic

I think one of the points missed is that college football is an arm of the athletic department and the University. The money generated from football or any other revenue sports should be used to help with other programs, if necessary. A University with only a football team would have a tough time generating all of the money that is being debated without other sports programs because they would not meet the minimum number of sports that is required to keep a conference affiliation and a large part of revenue sharing. Sure, there are a few schools that could survive as independents, but if that was the way to go, then it would have happened already. Some folks in this forum have shared the view that student-athletes in non-revenue sports should just be grateful to have tuition, room, board, books, but I argue that should be the same for student-athletes playing football. Just look at the Big West Conference, no football programs exist. Why? Because they were losing money as most programs do. College football is big business because alumni and fans support their hometown teams. Many student-athletes have been propelled into star status because the sports information departments at the Universities market student-athletes in trying to bring more visibilty to a campus. That is no different than the law school at Harvard marketing their very best students to bring more visibility to their campus. Most student-athlete would love to be showcased for their talents at their respective university and they do it knowing that their are no payments associated with it.

College football is not big business vis a vis the rest of the school. Just because the number seem big to the public does not make it big in the overall scheme of a school's budget.

Let's take the biggest revenue football team last season, Texas. They generated $80 million in revenue last year.
Let's take a large government contract, Lawrence Livermore Labs. They received $1.5 billion in federal dollars last year.

I don't even know if Livermore is the largest government contract. I do know it is only one of several programs under the University of California. People want to pay players in a sport that generates a paltry $80 million which is part of an athletic department that more than likely loses money. This payment to players will trigger federal laws that will endanger $1.5 billion dollars. And this is only a fraction of federal monies which would be put in jeopardy. It makes no sense at all.

A paltry $80 million? I don't care how you slice it, one (and a half) sports generates a ton of dough. If the school wants to take that money and dump it into sports that lose money...so be it. That's a them problem.

Posted by cydrych on 6/17/2011 1:46:00 PM (view original):They clearly would rather dump it into sports/facilities/contracts that increase the university's appeal to all students rather than pay a small portion to appease their entitlement issues.

Because we all know that having a good women's field hockey team is clearly more appealling to the student body than a SEC football championship,

Posted by cydrych on 6/17/2011 3:31:00 PM (view original):Having a women's field hockey program (whether its good or not) is more important than a football championship to some students/alumni, absolutely.

The school is bigger than football. The school is the reason football makes the kind of money it does. Football is certainly the cash cow but that's not all a school should offer or care about.

I agree the school is bigger than football. That won't change if you pay football players.

There's already a difference in how schools treat their head football and men's basketball coaches versus other coaches and professors, both in terms of working conditions and renumeration. Extending that to the athletes should not prompt the kind of Chicken Littlism espoused on this thread.

I'm not suggesting it's a pancea that will end illicit payments, either. But it will do a lot more good than maintaining the status quo with tougher penalties.